Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

George Osborne ‘foolish’ on same-sex marriage, says Archbishop Nichols

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. I think that the man who works for a bronze age desert death cult that worships a psychotic bloodthirsty supernatural entity really doesn’t get to call anyone else “foolish.”

    1. Indeed. I said the same, lower down the thread before reading your saying it here at the top. It’s Nichols who’s the fool.

    2. Archbishop Vincent Nichols is lying, see the 2010 Tory Party Manifesto document “A Contract For Equalities” which clearly states the intention to look at how to introduce same sex marriage, and Theresa May’s statement that acting on these pledges would be central to the Tory party’s aims when in government.
      http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2010/05/Our_contract_for_equality.aspx

    3. Post-Roman, actually. Otherwise, yes.

      1. If they tore up the old testament and threw it away, I would agree with you.

  2. And who exactly is making a political football, mister churchman?

    1. Yes, indeed most of the population have real issues to worry about. It is the church that has from the outset turned the issue of equality into a “political football”. The silver lining is that they are making a good case for increased secularism.

      1. John Jones 20 Nov 2012, 1:26am

        I would say, David Cameron and George Osboure, both of whom are using this cause, probably, as a way of gaining the middle ground from Labour and appealing to Libertarians (both on the right of the Conservative party and the Lib Dems).

        Call me a cynic, but I would look to the politicians first when trying to find political motives.

  3. “….it is a redefining of marriage for everyone and therefore all marriages”.

    Utter tripe! If we consider marriage a universal thing and the UK a small country that’s part of the EU and very close to many other EU countries, then has equal marriage in, for example, Sweden, affected anyone’s marriage in the UK or other countries? Do straight married people wake up and agonise over the fact that tow Swedish women married the day before and thus their own marriage has somehow been altered? Of course not.

    The Archbishop is scaremongering and spreading misinformation.

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Nov 2012, 12:32pm

      Indeed, Iris. Spreading misinformation is a rather polite way to describe. I’d be unpolitically correct and just say the man and his ilk are nothing more than psychopathic liars, bigots and hypocrites. They claim to be “christians”, yet there they are, bearing false witness against gay people, a violation of one of the ten commandments they claim to uphold. StonewallUK should NOT desist from calling these fanatical clerics BIGOTS, because that’s just what they are and such an award is richly deserved.

      What really galls me is that these vile people get away with it. Nobody in government is countering their disgusting, hateful rhetoric aided and abetted by the Daily Hate Mail and Telegraph.

      1. Yes, and they conveninetly overlook all the ways marriage has been ‘redefined’ before eg by allowing divorce; by the Married Women’s Property Act, etc etc.

        All those cause them no rpoblem, it seems, so I find it very hard to take their stupid allegation seriously. They’re just making it as another way to attack and persecute LGBT people. You’d think Christians would have better things to do with their time like helping the poor and needy. But, hey, nothing beats persecuting a minority!

        1. John Jones 20 Nov 2012, 1:23am

          But it is a major redefinition. In all changes to marriage under civil law, the one fact that has remained crucial is that a fundamental part of marriage is a) potential natural reproduction, b) natural family life and c) the union of two opposites in nature (male and female). What on earth is so ‘bigoted’ and ‘hateful’ about pointing this out?

          Marriage will be redefined in a radical way. It will affect all marriages and the ontological meaning of marriage in this country. If people cannot be concerned about that without being accused of being bigoted, then I just despair.

          Like it or not, and in an objective way of looking at things, marriage will be radically redefined and will soon be more like civil partnerships for all than what has traditionally been considered ‘marriage’ throughout most of our history.

        2. No, John J, civil marriage carries no mention of procreation. Many people marry (in churches too) with no intention of procreating or unable to procreate. I don’t see the churches complaining about that.

          The only change I can see would be the bit about one man to one woman, but changing that to one person to one person would sort that. People who are already married would’ve had their marriage done using the words ‘man’ & ‘woman’ so it’s not going to affect them anyway, & people who marry in the future will surely be able to cope with the all-encompassing ‘person’? After all, in the church ceremony they ask “Do you….?” ‘You’ carries no gender but no-one’s ever complained about that. They can deal with ‘person’ in the same way, or even, if the two marrying ARE man & woman maybe there could be the option to use the gender nouns in the ceremony?

          Allowing divorce didn’t ‘taint’ the marriages of those who had no intention of divorcing, & allowing SSM won’t taint other marriages either.

  4. Insolent prig.

  5. Peter Robertson 19 Nov 2012, 11:10am

    Once again the bigots harp on about ‘redefining’ marriage yet carefully refrain from giving a single difference that marriage equality would make to any existing marriage.

    They obviously understand that there are no such differences, but they have to try to find a way to obscure the fact that the sole reason for their vitriol is a dislike of homosexuality.

  6. “Before Christmas” is getting pretty close now- only about 4 weeks to go-just hope they don’t “bottle out”!

    Still-I note that the Cardinal is now using more moderate language in respect of this issue. Surely a positive reason to support Stonewall’s “Bigot of the Year” awards? They do achieve SOME good- managing to shut Melanie phillip’s rants up last year as well.

    1. John Jones 20 Nov 2012, 2:07am

      You’re writing about the wrong man… Maybe the fact that he isn’t a cardinal might be a clue!?

  7. Peter & Michael 19 Nov 2012, 12:03pm

    These are the kind of people that sign the death warrant for woman whom need abortions, just look at the recent case in Ireland, doctors refused an abortion to a critically ill woman, because of the catholic church.

    When it comes to same-sex rights, they go off again, they think they own a person’s life, forgetting the amount of abuse, etc; they have caused through the years to young people.

    1. The Catholic Church has a lot of blood on its hands!

    2. John Jones 20 Nov 2012, 1:35am

      ‘doctors refused an abortion to a critically ill woman, because of the catholic church’??

      What?

      More jumping the gun, I think.

      In fact, the Church teaches that in cases of miscarriage, ‘natural abortion’, then the woman’s life is always to be saved. The scandal, if there was one, as no-one really knows the facts of the case, about what happened in Ireland is that the doctors might have acted in an unCatholic way (i.e. by following their own interpretation of Irish law and not acting in a way that would save the live of the mother).

  8. Vincent Nichols thinks George Osborne is “foolish”, does he? But Vincent Nichols totally believes in some omnipresent, omniscient pixie-in-the-sky!

    It’s you, Vincent Nichols, who’s the fool!

    1. John Jones 20 Nov 2012, 1:39am

      It is the fool who says in his heart, ‘there is no God’.

      Only time will prove who the fools were in that regard.

      I don’t think Nichols believe in an ‘omniscient pixie-in-the-sky’. Those who believe that he does a) only appear childish in their reasoning, and b) mock any argument for atheism that might be valid. If atheists are arguing against sky fairies and pixies, then it says more about their level of intelligence and ability to reason than it does about their opponents.

      1. “It is the fool who says in his heart, ‘there is no God’.

        Only time will prove who the fools were in that regard.”

        Well… it’s been 2000 years and the clock is still ticking…
        Your side still hasn’t proved a thing!

  9. As with slavery, racial discrimination, anti-semitism and so on, all supported by the church for centuries, they will change their tune regarding women’s and gay rights and then claim that they were the ones responsible for liberalising attitudes in society!

    1. John Jones 20 Nov 2012, 1:30am

      ‘slavery, racial discrimination, anti-semitism’?

      Where do people get this stuff from?

      I really wish our education system could start producing objective, fact-based historians once more, as opposed to the bizarre ‘that-celebrity-said-it-so-it-must-be-true’ type of tripe most people seem to believe.

      1. put a sock in it.

        you are the one who needs a history lesson.

      2. Slavery’s condoned in the bible, and the bible was used to ‘prove’ black people were inferior. Murder’s also condoned too, and rape. Read it again, John J – all of it – and think again.

      3. Read a little history yourself, then you might begin to understand where people ‘get this stuff’ from.

  10. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Nov 2012, 12:27pm

    Didn’t Peter Tatchell say that the consultation had only managed to get 288,000 signatures for the consultation, the majority of them hateful? Even if that is true, it has nothing to do with the government moving ahead. Nichols and his gang of hatemongers will revel of course but it’s hardly a barometer of the country as a whole.

    How would he like it if there was a referendum to not only disestablish the state cult but also banish catholicism from the UK once and for all? These bigots had better be careful what they wish for. It may well fire back on them as it did in three American states two weeks ago.

    1. Repeal the Catholic Relief Act!

  11. Vincent, what have we agreed about the separation of religion and the State? I don’t think you’d like the State to start releasing public declarations on the details contained in your favourite book, would you?

    1. John Jones 20 Nov 2012, 1:47am

      It does, though. The state has always tried to interfere in the private and internal workings of the Church, in a way it wouldn’t dream of with any other organisation. Ever heard of St Thomas Becket? What about Henry VIII?

      ‘… start releasing public declarations on the details contained in your favourite book’ — Please explain?

      Already, the Church of England is controlled by Parliament, and even the Prime Minister (along with the previous ones) has voiced his public opinion as to what the Church should / shouldn’t believe.

      As for ‘what have we agreed…’. What’s that supposed to mean? There is no separation of Church and state in England — well, the Anglican church, anyway. The Catholic Church does not seek to be a state Church, and — believe it or not — never has done, even if the English state wouldn’t have come into existence without it. Yet, it is in intrinsic right that all citizens — yes, even ones that go to Church — get to voice an opinion about their State.

      1. “The state has always tried to interfere in the private and internal workings of the Church…”

        Fact is, a state has sometimes tried to interfere in the private and internal workings of a church, and a church has sometimes tried to interfere in the private and internal workings of a state.

        “The Catholic Church does not seek to be a state Church, and — believe it or not — never has done…”

        Wasn’t the catholic church the state religion of the holy roman empire, and before that of the Byzantine empire, i.e. Constantine?

        “… it is in intrinsic right that all citizens — yes, even ones that go to Church — get to voice an opinion about their State.”

        That is a direct result of democracy, not theocracy.

        Finally, I have no difficulty at all understanding what Beberts says about the State releasing public declarations on th edetails in your favorite book, and I daresay I am not alone in that.

  12. Why does the archbishop not think it a better policy to just shut up about civil matters that are none of his concern?

    1. John Jones 20 Nov 2012, 1:49am

      Because all civil matters are the concern of those who belong to a society. So, they are his concern, they are your concern, they are my concern.

      What’s wrong with having to deal with people that you don’t agree with?

      At what price freedom?

      1. Fair enough – then you can have no objection to ‘celebrities’ speaking on all manner of issues they’re not qualified or experienced to speak on either then, can you?

  13. ...Paddyswurds 19 Nov 2012, 12:45pm

    It is ceaselessly amazing to me that thses deluded idiots don’t see the irony of calling someone foolish while you yourself talk to imaginary deities and run you life as if these deities actually existed. In normal society if one runs around claiming to talk to imaginary friends one would most definitely be locked up in a secure institution for ones own and public safety. There will be Equality for Gay people no matter how loudly these fools scream their homophobia and bigotry so they should get on the right side of history and save themselves a whole lot of eventual embarrassment.

  14. This and other religious institutions are still clutching their straws aren’t they?

    Marriage is not being redefined as he puts it, more it is being added to so that it is more inclusive.

    My marrying another man will have no effect on anyone else’s marriage in the same way that my straight friend who married recently, her marriage has no bearing on mine.

    Worth taking a look at this link too everyone, a very well written piece:

    http://newhumanist.org.uk/2905/31-arguments-against-gay-marriage-and-why-theyre-all-wrong#.UKn9R408P8w.twitter

    1. Thanks for that link. Yes, it’s clearly written and covers lots of the anti-equality arguments.

      1. Pleasure! It really was an interesting read.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Nov 2012, 6:28pm

      Thanks for posting the link, very useful indeed. I wish someone in goverment would spell it out for them, loud and clear. Nobody seems to counter them head-on. All we hear about is the usual nonsense, often hateful, coming from the Daily Mail, Telegraph and those who use both to promote their bigotry, Nichols being the latest. There will be more I’ve no doubt as a first draft of a bill emerges.

  15. What really annoys me is that the Christian churches seem to think they invented marriage and have some sort of right to control and define the rules for it. Well at least 3 other world religions are much older and have marriage as well Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim. And let us not forget that for thousands of years of recorded history people got married. Look at the writings of the Greeks and Romans from ancient times. So if they didn’t invent it what gives them the right to control it?

    1. Islam is not older than christianity – the former arose in the seventh century AD, the latter in the first and second centuries AD. Islam is essentially an Arab-themed copy of all the nasty bits of judaism and christianity.

      1. ...Paddyswurds 19 Nov 2012, 5:01pm

        Hindi is almost 3000 years old and the roots of it go back even further, Siddhartha Gautama, he Buddha lived between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE so Buddism pre-dates Christianity . Hinduism also pre-dates Christianity by thousands of years and is generally accepted as the oldest living religion in the World. Its roots are in ancient Vedicism and goes back to the iron age in India. Islam is the only major religion that came after Christianity. All of course are a delusion and serious mental disease and affliction. Buddhism has until recently been looked on as a benign belief system which embodied peace and love but recent happenings in Burma where the majority Buddhists have rose up against the minority Muslims and have driven them out and burned their homes. Religion is a human construct invented in order for kings and various despots to control their populations.

        1. The situation in Burma is not a usual thing in the Buddhist world. They are not carrying out these atrocity’s in the name of any religion but out of ignorance and fear. You wont find any Buddhist monks condoning what is going on. They claim the Rohingyas are illegal immigrants from Bangladesh and do not belong there. They are officially stateless persons. You will find similar stories all over SE Asia There are many Hill tribes in the region that are effectively stateless persons.

          Look at the camps in The north of Thailand around Chiang Rai, There are Thousands who Burma wont take and Thailand wont take. There are I believe at least 8 hill tribes around the border areas of Thailand, Laos, Burma and Cambodia. They are all effectively stateless and have been often since the 60’s

          Chiang Mai and Chiang Rai have many Shan, though I believe quite a few will be going back to Burma now they have a Shan state. However many where born in Thailand and consider it home.

          1. This has more to do with geopolitics, ineffectual or uncaring governments and week leadership. These people who are attacking the Rohingyas should be ashamed of themselves. Most of the Buddhist world are certainly ashamed of this. How do I know?. I am a Buddhist. And have spent a lot of time in the region.

        2. I agree with what you say but, to go off at a tangent and be pedantic, Hindi is the language not the belief system (I think it’s probably just a slip of the keyboard).

    2. John Jones 20 Nov 2012, 1:52am

      “the Christian churches seem to think they invented marriage”

      Actually, if you bothered to read what the Church has constantly taught, she does not believe that she invented marriage. In fact, the Church believes that nature invented marriage, and that neither the Church nor the state is able to play games with it.

      I really wish people would take Wittgenstein’s famous dictum to heart.

      1. Didn’t Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) agree with Marx when he said that metaphysics is the misuse of language, and that science and ordinary language is where it’s at? A famous dictum, indeed.

        Sometimes I do wonder where the world would be if science had not ‘played’ with nature, but then I wouldn’t have Wiki, would I?

        To be fair, the church has every right to refuse the insights of scientific research though.

        Moreover, we have grown accustomed to the ambivalence with which you speak, i.e. ‘the Church has constantly taught’.

        Wouldn’t it be more exact to state that such and such an individual who lived at such and such a time formulated a doctrine which has become ingrained in the mentality of some christians, and that you believe that person was inspired by a deity which imposes its will on humanity by threatening us with eternal hell-fire if we don’t listen and behave accordingly?

        But as long as we are dropping names, I wonder what James Joyce thought about all that.

      2. ‘Nature invented marriage’? Are you for real?

        I take it the Papists believe Nature invented divorce as well then (not to mention polygamy), yet seem curiously unwilling to condone it.

  16. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Nov 2012, 1:17pm

    A bit rich coming from a representative of a foreign power with a centuries old tradition of paedophilia, ephebophilia and misogyny but claims to be pro-family; that a child MUST have one father and one mother, while supposedly celibate sociopathic clergy are shunted from one parish to another to cover up their atrocities and paying hush money to make it go away.

    Every one in their hierarchy should be arrested for complicity in some of the worst crimes against humanity, their assets sold and proceeds distributed to the poor, the true meaning of christianity. The roman cult is utterly and totally morally bankrupt and in no position to judge others or spread malicious lies about one specific group of people.

  17. think he’s the one out of touch

  18. How is it a “political football” when all 3 major parties back to move and polls show a majority generally in favour?

    1. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Nov 2012, 3:51pm

      Cal, not so sure if a majority in the Tory party support it though. I can only count Cameron, Osborne, May, Miller, and five or six others whose names I forget. We’ll need at least 30 or more of them to guarantee safe passage, assuming all of Labour and Liberal Democrats vote yes in a whipped vote, currently at 311. 326 is needed to pass, hopefully more will get on board over time. It would be a dream come true to see it pass by a huge majority, vindicating the government’s plan in the eyes of the bigots.

      1. According to the Coalition For Equal Marriage, 75 Tory MPs have indicated they will vote in favour, 62 against, with the rest not yet known.
        75 in favour should be more than enough, assuming that Labour & Lib Dems are whipped in favour.

        1. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Nov 2012, 5:56pm

          I hope C4EM is right. 75 would be a very desirable indeed. From what I’ve learned, Miliband and Clegg have indicated a whipped vote. The Tories should have a conscience vote because it will put a stop to the bigots complaining who will vote no, even though the bill will have passed. I only hope 75 becomes 100 or more, really slamming it to the naysayers once and for all. I wonder what the bigots will do once it’s over? Who else can they hate after that? Maybe themselves perhaps for being shown just how foolish and stupid they are? They’ll have a hard time trying to prove all of the negative issues they claim could happen once gay couples start marrying. I can just hear them saying…divorce, adultery, domestic violence are on the rise because of equal marriage.

  19. “This is not simply a redefining of marriage to accommodate a few – it is a redefining of marriage for everyone and therefore all marriages”

    Ok, lets see if I can get this one right.
    ALL heterosexual marriages will be immediately divorced. And EVERYONE will be FORCED by law into marrying someone of the same sex.
    I wonder what the punishment will be for heterosexuality… Perhaps life imprisonment, or even death!

    Am I missing some of it?
    Oh yes, It’s all a fiction in side Mr. Priest’s silly head.

    1. John Jones 20 Nov 2012, 1:58am

      “ALL heterosexual marriages will be immediately divorced.”

      Don’t be silly.

      But the law on marriage will be amended to such an extent that consummation, adultery, etc, will no longer stand. Procreation will no longer be a fundamental part of marriage, and terms such as husband and wife etc will eventually be removed. Already, those who believe that marriage is a natural institution — primarily — to bring together members of the opposite sex for the creation of new life have been warned that their views (if they work as teachers etc) may mean they end up losing their jobs.

      “Am I missing some of it?”

      Simple answer: yes.

      Also, can one be gay and still wish to defend natural marriage and the definition as it still exists: yes.

  20. ‘it was not in any election manifesto’
    Nichols clearly believes Dr Goeball’s dictum that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. It was in the Conservative Party’s manifesto & it was reported on before the 2010 general election by the Telegraph with no adverse criticism by the paper. Clearly neither Nicholls nor Cantaur can distinguish between truth & myth, which is a sad reflection on their claims to speak & manifest Christ’s actual teachings.

    1. These people, as we all know, won’t let the thing called truth get in their way!

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Nov 2012, 3:47pm

      Someone should contact the Telegraph to remind them of that Steve. It most certainly was in the manifesto in 2010.

    3. John Jones 20 Nov 2012, 2:04am

      http://media.conservatives.s3.amazonaws.com/manifesto/cpmanifesto2010_lowres.pdf

      That’s the 2010 Conservative party Manifesto.

      Please find where it says that if elected, the Tories would seek to legislate for same-sex marriage. There are two references to marriage in the whole document, both in relation to tax. Civil partnerships are mentioned in the same sentences.

  21. DJ Sheepiesheep 19 Nov 2012, 2:22pm

    Who will rid us of this bigoted priest?

    1. John Jones 20 Nov 2012, 2:06am

      State seeking to silence the Church once more.

      1. what we are looking at here is the church (Nichols) seeking to silence the state (Osborne), buddy.

  22. Oh dear, oh dear off we go again same old stuff. Do they not see that each generation after another is turning away from them and their supposed ‘truth’. In discussion with friends the other night about resources for studying history we made the point that future generations will have access to untold riches by way of televised interviews, internet searches etc. How utterly silly and evil will these churchmen look when their lies will never be able to be erased and spun!

    1. John Jones 20 Nov 2012, 2:11am

      Let history, then, be the judge of that.

      It sometimes happens that history takes a very different view to the one we might perceive.

      The Church has been around a very long time, and by sticking to what it has always taught, it has managed to survive — despite being the most persecuted group in this country’s history.

      Actually, if you bothered to go to a Catholic church, you’d see that they tend to be packed on a Sunday, unlike the Anglican church. which seems to have compromised with the world so much that it has now merely been subsumed into it.

      1. Mr. Jones, if you bothered to have a look at what is happening to the catholic church on a global scale, you’d see that thousands of parishes have closed for lack of priests, and that consequently what few priests remain are in their 60’s and more often than not, are depressed and on the verge of a burn-out.

        also, since the church became the official religion of Constantine’s Empire (c. 312 A.D.), christians were transformed overnight from martyrs into inquisitors, and anyone who did not toe the line of the official religion was persecuted and/or executed to the point that Europe reeked with the odor of scorched human flesh.

        Are you saying that history has been unkind to christianity?

  23. “This is not simply a redefining of marriage to accommodate a few – it is a redefining of marriage for everyone and therefore all marriages”.

    WHAT UTTER TRIPE!!!! Keep up this kind of rant and YES, you will be promoted to Cardinal!!!!!

  24. Yes, because ever since Gay Marriage was legalised in places like Sweden and various states in USA, they have descended into post-apocalyptic states of anarchy.
    People often say that Equal marriage would ‘damage society’ but they never specify how, and often if you take their arguments word for word, and replace the word ‘gay’ with ‘black’ or ‘female’ they would be deemed racist or sexist and no-one would pay attention to them. The only argument against equal marriage is prejudice, which is not a valid argument at all.

  25. gentlemind 19 Nov 2012, 5:51pm

    Vincent Nichols is right on this. If we redefine marriage, the new definition will be the only definition ie the one that describes everybody’s marriage. All marriages will be legally understood to be between “two people”, rather than “one man and one woman”. That might not seem much of a change, but in the context of what marriage is, it is a redefinition of the legal understanding of parenthood itself. Quite freaky. The legal erasure of the terms “Husband” and “Wife” can be explained if we envision marriage as a loving relationship between adults. But the legal erasure of the words “Father” and “Mother” can only be explained by recognising that the definition of mariage and the definition of parenthood are one and the same. Hence why international law gives marriage as the right to marry and found a family. Pure logic. A redefinition of marriage redefines parenthood. For everybody.

    gentlemind

    1. we have already redefined parenthood …

    2. “pure logic”…..that’s a good one!

    3. Robert in S. Kensington 19 Nov 2012, 8:24pm

      So what about hetero widows and widowers raising children on their own with no intention of marrying. Force them to marry? You just don’t get it do you. Civil marriage redefined marriage allowing for divorce for those who weren’t successful at previous marriages, sometimes serial adulterers marry over and over without having children. Civil marriage doesn’t mandate procreation. If that were the case, no straight infertile or elderly couple would allowed to marry. You’re one of the fear mongers obviously. Nichols cult already bans divorced people from marrying and the CoE doesn’t allow divorced heteros, including serial adulterers to marry in church. Provide us with examples, since Nichols can’t, as to how marriage has been redefined to harm or affect hetero marriages or societies please? Eleven countries allow it, surely you could get an official government comment on that from any of them to back up Nichols claim? When you find it, come back and publish the evidence.

    4. Perhaps you should read the link D. McCabe gave, gentlemind? Especially the bits about gender. Here:

      http://newhumanist.org.uk/2905/31-arguments-against-gay-marriage-and-why-theyre-all-wrong#.UKn9R408P8w.twitter

      And I have no idea what you’re trying to say by stating “the legal erasure of the words “Father” and “Mother” can only be explained by recognising that the definition of mariage and the definition of parenthood are one and the same.” No, they not.

      1. No, *they’re* not.

        1. Parenthood is the only human relationship that, by definition, is permanent and exclusive to two people. Nature dictates that those two people are one man and one woman. The three elements of the physical reality of parenthood are permanence, heterosexuality (containing both sexes), and exclusivity (containing only two people). Change any one of the elements and you have a false definition of parenthood. If one element is false, the whole definition becomes changeable. That is why marriage in Canada is no longer defined as permanent, and why children in Canada can now have more than two legal parents. I do not believe for a second that the average person who just so happens to be sexually attracted to people of the same sex as themself wants to alter the legal status of everybody’s parental relationship. But that is indeed the unavoidable outcome. It’s a con. And i for one am very very sorry that good people are being used to for this end. I wish you well.

          gentlemind

          1. Yes, only two people can conceive a child (currently – experiments have happened using 3 parents) and yes, that child needs a male part and a female part to be conceived, but parenthood is far more than that. I’ve looked after children who’s conceptive parents (ie the ones that provided the DNA) are as far from parents as you could imagine.

            The law doesn’t recognise ‘exclusivity’ in the same way as you, eg more than two people can be awarded ‘parental responsibility'; a child could have two natural parents, then two adoptive parents. None of this happened because of LGBT people or the push for equal marriage, by the way. It happened because of divorce, reproductive techniques, etc. So your implication that LGBT people want to alter other people’s parental relationships is false. It’s already happened BEFORE equal marriage.

          2. In what way will the legal status of those – ‘everybody’ – who want to be termed ‘mother’ and ‘father’ be changed? If they are the mother and father, who’s going to argue with them?

    5. Are you sure that you your name is gentlemind and not feeble minded?

      Your arguments are old and tired…

      When gay marriage happens, the sun will still rise, nothing will change…
      except of course, the lives those gays and lesbians who want to get married!

  26. Garry Cassell 19 Nov 2012, 6:51pm

    What are you afraid that if people become too accepting of same-sex marriage the supply of young boys for the clergy will be less…you won’t be able to use fear against them anymore…and besides what do the priest know about marriage??? what a bloody farce…Catholic priest giving advice about marriage…Too foolish to talk about…

  27. Har Davids 19 Nov 2012, 8:19pm

    Living in the Netherlands, where same-sex marriage has been possible since 2000, I can say that nothing has changed. I haven’t heard anyone complaining about gay marriage affecting theirs, so I think Archbigot Nichols is talking BS.

    1. John Jones 20 Nov 2012, 2:14am

      Despite beliefs to the contrary, social revolutions and seismic changes take decades if not centuries before affecting societies.

      Best wait a couple of hundred years.

      1. Does your balloon ever land?

      2. Sorry, I can’t wait a couple of hundred years (nor would I want to). Can you?

      3. What a brilliant line of thought… wait decades or centuries for gay marriage! You know this line of thought, really takes me back 30 years… In the 70’s and 80’s (in Australia) gays were marching for, Homosexual law reform. It wasn’t legal to be gay (that is gay sex was illegal) in New South Wales till 1984. You know what, there was no seismic change in Australian society, Australia is still here! Another thing that happened about 30 years ago was a documentary that was shown on the
        ABC. It was a documentary about gays in Sydney, they had one catholic priest being interviewed, saying how the church
        was 2000 years old and it would never accept homosexuality. The funny thing though, the very same priest was filmed coming out of a men’s toilet! My point of this rant is… what a hypercritical church the catholic church is!

  28. “it was not in any election manifesto, it has not in that sense been put to the country”

    And how many people in the UK voted for Mr Nichols and how many of us have asked the catholic church to interfere in civil affairs.

    I’m not a catholic and the only thing I’m interested in hearing from the Mr Nichols is the word sorry, sorry for the nasty attitudes to LGBT people, sorry for the cover up of sexual abuse amongs its clergy and probably sorry for a lot more other things.

    I have no interest in what a catholic marriage means to Mr Nichols.

    1. John Jones 20 Nov 2012, 2:23am

      Ever thought of a career in diplomacy?

      There are about 8 million Catholics in the UK (including all 4 constituent parts). Of those, about 3 million attend church each Sunday. I guess he is speaking for them? (or at least the 1.3 million that go to church in England and Wales.)

      The UK has a population of 60 m; about 40 m can vote, whilst only about 20 million people choose to vote (getting less by the year). Most church-goers choose to vote as they believe they have a duty to participate in the democratic process. So a substantial portion of the voting population is Catholic. On top of that, if you add Anglicans, Evangelicals, Muslims, orthodox Jews, etc, about 6 million (one third) of the voting population are regular (weekly) theistic worshippers, all of whom are broadly in agreement about issues such as marriage. It can be guessed that another 3-5 million probably believe and agree (inc atheists), even if they do not attend a church, mosque, synagogue.

      1. I don’t know where you’ve got you’re stats from mate but I think you’re kidding yourself if you think one third of the voting population are regular church goers! and none of the church leaders as far as I know are elected by the public. We did , however, vote for a coalition govt in the UK and the majority of the public did vote for the 3 major parties in the UK which have all come out in favour of equal civil marriage.

        Did you ever think of career in comres or with C4M?

  29. The Archbishop is a professional huckster and a chronic liar.
    The 2010 Tory party manifesto document “A Contract For Equalities” outlined the intention to look at introducing same sex marriage and Theresa May published a statement of the intention to act.

  30. Bill (Scotland) 19 Nov 2012, 11:09pm

    I rather thought that George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer and obviously a member of the government, was very effectively countering the pernicious arguments of this hateful cult. In fact it is the very seniority of his intervention that has provoked this very silly man into his ridiculous faux outrage.

    The Catholic Church has staged this histrionic nonsense in every country which has legislated for same-sex in the run up to the legislation being passed. I just hope our Government will continue with its mission.

    1. agreed. Nichols, and his equivalent in every country of the world, is a mouthpiece… period.

      He does not think for himself, and that is how he was promoted to where he is now.

  31. You can’t say ‘foolish’. That’s just intolerance and namecalling. Ask Barclays.

    You meanie. What an obvious attack on free speech and liberty this is. This is how Stalin and Hitler started out.

  32. Tom Morris 20 Nov 2012, 1:39am

    Vincent Nichols: “it was not in any election manifesto”

    The Daily Telegraph: “A Conservative government would ”consider” changing the law to allow gay civil partnerships to be renamed marriages, it was confirmed today. The promise came in a ”contract for equalities”, unveiled by shadow women’s minister Theresa May”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7673249/General-Election-2010-Conservatives-may-reclassify-gay-civil-partnership-as-marriage.html

    This, ladies and gents, is what they call a lie.

    1. John Jones 20 Nov 2012, 2:25am

      Instead of relying on secondary sources, why not engage with the primary source?

      http://media.conservatives.s3.amazonaws.com/manifesto/cpmanifesto2010_lowres.pdf

      That’s the 2010 Conservative party Manifesto.

      Please find where it says that if elected, the Tories would seek to llegsialte for same-sex marriage. There are two references to marriage in the whole document, both in relation to tax. Civil partnerships are mentioned in the same sentences.

      1. We have a coalition govt not a Tory govt and the Tories equality manifesto clearly states that they would consider the case

        http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2010/05/~/media/Files/Downloadable%20Files/Manifesto/Equalities-Manifesto.ashx

        ““We support civil partnerships and will recognise civil partnerships in the tax system. Our plans to end the couple penalty in the tax credits system and to introduce a new system of flexible parental leave will apply to all couples, regardless of whether they are heterosexual or same sex couples. ”

        “We will also consider the case for for changing the law to allow civil partnerships to be called and classified as marriage.”

        1. a) No-one voted for a coalition government – +Nichols mentioned the Tory manifesto. There is no coalition manifesto. Those arguing against the prelate claimed he was lying on the basis of there having been a commitment to introduce same-sex marriages in the 2010 Conservative Manifesto. There wasn’t; so he isn’t lying.

          b) The Equalities Manifesto was not part of the published Conservative Manifesto — the one we would have read when deciding whether or not to vote for them. Also, even that merely states ‘we will consider the case for changing…’ — i.e. debate it with the view of bringing it in, if supported by the people, after the following election.

          People might not like facts, but they remain just that.

  33. The Tories equality manifesto clearly states that they would consider the case for SSM so I suggest Mr Nichols does his research first before spouting out nonsense and inaccuracies.

    http://www.conservatives.com/News/News_stories/2010/05/~/media/Files/Downloadable%20Files/Manifesto/Equalities-Manifesto.ashx

    ““We support civil partnerships and will recognise civil partnerships in the tax system. Our plans to end the couple penalty in the tax credits system and to introduce a new system of flexible parental leave will apply to all couples, regardless of whether they are heterosexual or same sex couples. ”

    “We will also consider the case for for changing the law to allow civil partnerships to be called and classified as marriage.”

  34. In reply to “John Jones” ….

    You suggest above that another commenter should be more diplomatic and that Nichols views were in line with the majority of churchgoers.

    Are you suggeting Mr Nichols is open to diplomacy and reason and might change his approach if we are more diplomatic?

    I hear from many ordinary catholics (as well as anglicans and other denominations) that they have a strong wish to move on and to welcome and accept same sex relationships both within and outside their churches. But their leaders are not popularly elected or representative and seek to enforce central authority & uniformity. I suppose it is because they are a self-selected, self- perrpetuating professional class who fear that if they change anything then the whole edifice of the church will come crashing down. Personally i tend to think their best chance of survival would be to embrace change.

    The catholics take a feet first approach to debate, no doubt with the intention of stirring up a rumpus

  35. Nichol’s words are wrong and silly. But they coud be a lot worse. When it comse to Catholic leaders, Nichols has always been on the more moderate side. The Catholic church in England has been surprisingly liberal (look at the madness coming out of Scotland). Nichols will be under pressure from the Vatican to make strong statements against marriage equality – but he deliberately tones down the rhetoric.

  36. Weird coming from a church where children have been abused. Have thye no shame?

  37. This man isn’t married! What does he know about marriage?

  38. Many bigoted 19th century English Protestants felt ‘deeply uneasy’ (and much worse) and felt that Christianity was ‘redefined’ by Catholic Emancipation and allowing Catholics to re-establish their dioceses here. So were the (to say the least, unrepresentative) politicians of the day wrong to implement these measures?

  39. They have a long way to go. They still won’t let women be bishops.

    1. Catholics won’t allow women to even be priests (though at least they’re consistent in their prejudice).

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all